Whiting v. Butch

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the defendant's Unopposed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal; the Clerk is DIRECTED to strike the documents attached to the Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal from the record; the defendant to redact any p ersonal and sensitive information in accordance with Rule 5.2.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 20.1 of the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, and to file the redacted exhibits with the court. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/11/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

WILLIAM V. WHITING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-25223

CHRISTOPHER S. BUTCH,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Unopposed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal
[ECF No. 27]. The defendant seeks to seal certain exhibits accompanying his Motion for Summary
Judgement [ECF No. 25]. The Unopposed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal is DENIED.
I.

Standard

According to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to seal must be accompanied by
a memorandum of law that contains:
(A) the reasons why sealing is necessary, including the reasons why
alternatives to sealing, such as redaction, are inadequate;
(B) the requested duration of the proposed seal; and
(C) a discussion of the propriety of sealing, giving due regard to the
parameters of the common law and First Amendment rights of access as
interpreted by the Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals.
S.D. W. Va. L.R. Civ. P. 26.4(b)(2).
The common law and the First Amendment protect the public right of access. Under the
common law, “there is a presumption of access accorded to judicial records.” Rushford v. New

Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). The party seeking to overcome this
presumption and to have documents sealed “bears the burden of showing some significant interest
that outweighs the presumption” and the public interest in access. Id. Under the First Amendment,
“the denial of access must be necessitated by a compelling government interest and narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.” Id. This heightened First Amendment standard applies “to
documents filed in connection with a summary judgment motion in a civil case.” Id.
II.

Discussion

Notwithstanding the obvious procedural deficiencies of the defendant’s motion in failing
to comply with Local Rule 26.4, the court denies the Motion on its substantive merits. 1 The
defendant contends that the documents contain information unavailable to the public, as well as
“‘personal data identifiers’ including social security [sic] numbers, dates of birth, names of minor
children, and financial account information.” Mot. Seal ¶ 3. The only reason asserted for wanting
to seal the documents is that redacting the allegedly sensitive information would be “unnecessarily
burdensome and time-consuming.” Id. This is unpersuasive. The exhibits total forty-four pages—
the overwhelming majority of which appear to contain no information that must be redacted in
accordance with Local Rule 5.2.1; accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (requiring partial redaction of “an
individual’s social-security [sic] number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name
of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number”); S.D. W. Va. Admin. P.
Electronic Case Filing 20.1. Most importantly, the court has been given no reason to believe the
alleged burden of redaction outweighs the public interest in access.

1

The defendant did not submit a memorandum of law, nor does the motion itself contain all of the information required
by Rule 26.4. This alone is enough to warrant denial of the motion.

2

Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion is DENIED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to strike
the documents attached to the Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal [ECF No. 27] from the record.
The court ORDERS the defendant to redact any personal and sensitive information in accordance
with Rule 5.2.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 20.1 of the Administrative
Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, and to file the redacted exhibits with the court.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

January 11, 2016